Syed AKHTAR ABBAS vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of an evacuee house valued at Rs. 12,000 under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question involves determining whether the auction-purchaser or the local occupant was legally entitled to the transfer of the property under the applicable settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement authorities and the High Court correctly determined that the local occupant was entitled to the transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, rendering the subsequent auction of the house invalid and leaving the auction-purchaser without locus standi. The key principle laid down is that where an evacuee property is rightfully transferable to a local occupant under the operative settlement scheme, a prior auction-purchaser acquires no enforceable right or locus standi in the matter.
- Whether a local occupant is entitled to the transfer of an evacuee house under Settlement Scheme No. VIII over an auction-purchaser?
- Does an auction-purchaser have locus standi to challenge the transfer of an evacuee house when the property was improperly put to auction?
- Section 3, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
ORDER
' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-In this case, the dispute relates to the transfer under the provision of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 of an evacuee house valued at Rs, 12,000. The competition is between the occupant of the house respondent No, 1 herein), who is a local and the auction-purchaser (the petitioner herein), who at one point of time was transferred the house as the highest bidder at an auction when it was considered that local occupants were disentitled to the transfer of evacuee houses whose value exceeded Rs, 10,000. Ultimately it was held by the Settlement authorities that the local occupant (respondent No, 1 herein) was entitled to the transfer under the subsequent Scheme viz. Settlement Scheme No, VIII with the result that the house could not have been put to auction at all. Accordingly, the auction-purchaser (petitioner No, 1 herein) had no locus mufti.
2. Mr. Saeedullah Khan for the petitioner, despite his lengthy submission before us, was not able to displace soundness of the view taken by the Settlement authorities and upheld by the High Court.
3. This petition has failed and is dismissed hereby.